Thread by @SteveDeaceShow

Some takeaways from the #IACaucus results in this thread, the first official votes of the 2024 election.

Before the vote, I said I was confident in 4 things:

1) Turnout would be down. ✔️
2) DeSantis would over-perform his polling. ✔️
3) Haley wouldn't finish second. ✔️
4) Haley would be closer to Vivek than DeSantis. ✖️

So I was right on 3/4. But there are details in there that must be further discussed, so we shall.

Turnout Would Be Down.
Make no mistake, this was a dominant performance by former President Trump. He more than doubled the record for largest caucus win ever (previously set by Dole 1988, who didn't win the nomination btw). Before we get into some other ominous signs within the turnout, though, that needs to be acknowledged from the jump. It is clear 'muh polls' were right about his support. Congratulations to him and his team. Tip of the cap. You blew the roof off the joint. Give them their flowers.

However, this election isn't about winning the Iowa Caucuses. It's really about winning 294 days from today. And to that end, there are concerns.

Yes, I expected turnout to be down. Until recently, this has been a low energy cycle in Iowa. Then we had the worst winter weather I can remember leading up to the in-person vote. However, I never expected a 41% drop in turnout from 2016. That is not good. When you factor in we have by far the most registered Republicans in the state's history, this is the worst turnout in the history of the Iowa Caucuses.

Can it all be chalked up to weather? Perhaps. But remember, GOP turnout was noticeably down across-the-board in the special and off-year elections in 2023 as well. So this is something to watch as we move forward, because I can't think of a time when a party had diminished turnout in a primary cycle and then went on to success in the general.

The biggest driver in depressed turnout? Shockingly it was white evangelicals -- long considered perhaps Trump's strongest base. They were 64% of caucus goers in 2016 but just 55% this year. No GOP nominee is winning a general election with depressed white evangelical turnout like that, no matter what percentage of them he gets.

Furthermore, the former president only averaged 41% in Iowa's four most populous counties, 10 points below his statewide percentage. That indicates, again, weakness with suburban voters (Iowa doesn't have a lot of urban areas, and urban areas heavily lean Democrat anyway). Suburban malaise has plagued Republicans in the Trump years the last several election cycles in a row, each of which they've disappointed. A state like Iowa still has enough critical mass in rural areas, where Trump is adored, to compensate for that. But none of the key swing states required to win a general election do.

DeSantis would over-perform his polls.
With 98% of precincts reporting, the Florida governor looks to have over-performed his RCP Iowa Caucus polling average by about 6 points (h/t to Trafalgar btw, most accurate pollster of these caucuses). Some polls this final week had him as low as 13%. So while the talk of 35,000 commitment cards didn't come to fruition (that was probably impacted by weather somewhat as well), his vaunted organization did surpass expectations as I predicted to finish second.

However, moving forward this now becomes a battle of messaging rather than meeting for mobilization. When I was with Newt in 2012, we won the South Carolina primary on the strength of one dominant debate performance alone. Without the extended runway to work a state and build relationships like you have in Iowa, DeSantis now faces the tough task of facing Trump (greatly aided by the SuperPAC known as Fox News) in a battle of rapid response and messaging.

DeSantis has shown he can destroy Newsom and dissect Haley when given a one-on-one, but Trump is not going to grant him that. Thus, DeSantis is going to have to use earned media, particularly national, to challenge the frontrunner. And more pointed national branding/advertising as well.

Sidenote: DeSantis was the only candidate to beat Trump in an age demo. He won young adults by 14 points over Trump. However, DeSantis' worst demo was boomers. He finished third there, and that's your Fox News correlated parlay right there. Baby boomers are Fox's core audience.

Haley wouldn't finish second.
I did get this right, too, but it was closer than I expected. While there weren't quite the numbers feared (non-Republicans fell from 21% in 2016 to a mere 16% in 2024), they were the bulk of Haley's base. Her hefty 34-8 advantage over DeSantis with non-Republican voters crossing over for her was enough to keep her within striking distance of second place. However, just 15% of actual Republicans voted for her. I'm not sure what your path moving forward is given that number, unless you're running for other reasons.

Haley would be closer to Vivek than DeSantis.
This is the one I missed, and I did so for two reasons. One, as I just discussed with Haley cleaning up among non-Republicans. The other is talk on the ground of a late Vivek mini-surge never really materialized. The only millennial in the race even finished behind Haley and Trump for fourth among young adults. He just never developed a base, despite being the most based candidate in the race according to some prominent Righty social media influencers. After Trump issued the Order 66 on Vivek over the weekend, and this disappointing finish, Vivek dropped out and officially endorsed Trump.

Moving forward here are the challenges each of the three candidates has:

1) Can Trump show he can sufficiently grow his support in real-time results that gives confidence he's a stronger general election candidate this time (e.g. better turnout, more suburban support, etc)?

2) Now that he's established himself as the only viable alternative to Trump, can DeSantis lure away at least some of Trump's base?

3) Is Haley truly running for this nomination or to be Trump's running mate? Because each requires its ow strategy to that end.